This makes sense because of what I said earlier, where Muslims have a serious inbreeding problem, because Islam does not discourage incestual marriages at all.
This is false. Islam doesn't encourage or discourage incest any more than modern Christianity. Catholicism inherited and strengthened the [Christian] Roman prohibition but then relaxed it in response to demand from cousinfuckers. On the Orthodox side of the schism, Romanovs fucked their cousins, nieces, and in some cases grand-nieces, with the church occasionally offended by lack of conversion to Orthodoxy but not the incest. Cousin marriages were common in the XIX century Europe (Charles Darwin and Lewis "prehistorical matriarchy" Morgan married their cousins and both knew it was dysgenic, also Herbert Wells, Poe, and Einstein (yes, seriously)) but have since faded. You can't seriously say this correlates with INCREASED Christian influence throughout the XX century (actually we have to thank American public health researchers). Muslim Tatars do not commit incest. Paki incest has to do with castes (even in Islam), extended family structures, and the cheapness of their scrotes (husbands and fathers).
Islam mandates
mahr, which is paid by the groom to the bride, to be her property. A related but worse custom is the
bride price, paid by the groom to the bride's family, buying her as livestock (but "at least" the implication is the woman is an asset, worth
something). But Pakis, like Hindus, make the bride's family pay "
jahez" (
dahej in Hindi -- obviously same shit, not related to
mahr) to the groom's family as thanks for relieving them of a, eeeeugh,
female. The father would rather marry off his breeding slave's negative-value crotch dropping to a cousin and reach an "understanding" about the payment than cough up the
jahez to benefit strangers.
(For completeness of marriage contract arrangements, a
dowry is given by the bride's family to the
bride, and where the woman didn't have the rights to manage it (real estate), was typically managed by her birth family until it passed to her children.)
Pakistan is Muslim, it's not very good for comparisons.
How is India doing?
According to the
National Family Health Survey (NHSF-4) 2015-16, released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 14% of marriages are consanguineous marriages, which are more common in all of the southern states except Kerala. “About one-third of women in Tamil Nadu, Lakshadweep, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana reported being in consanguineous marriages,” it said.
Tamil Nadu: 88% Hindu
Lakshadweep: 97% Muslim
Andhra Pradesh: 91% Hindu
Telangana: 95% Hindu
A factoid from
Wikipedia:
Andrey Korotayev claimed that Islamization was a strong and significant predictor of parallel cousin (father's brother's daughter – FBD) marriage, bint 'amm marriage. He has shown that while a clear functional connection exists between Islam and FBD marriage
but this is not how Indians like their incest (Kerala article, above):
Interestingly, in nearly all of these cases, the marriage is between cross cousins, that is, children born to a brother and sister, not two sisters and not two brothers. In other words, marriages between parallel cousins are not allowed.
Table in the article: Mukkuvan Hindus and Mukkuvan Christians are equally inbred at 20%. But Christian Syrians aren't inbred at all!
Anyway, Kerala has improved, because it's the most politically left and progressive state. It also has the lowest infant mortality and the second-highest F:M sex ratio at birth (few sex-selective abortions).
(I'm particularly interested in this because I sperg about the advantages of extended families over nuclear families in CURRENT YEAR in the "West" (europeoid cultural milieu). It doesn't appear that extended famlies would promote incest among europeoids. Anecdotally, perverts talk about "genetic sexual attraction" between relatives that had no contact in their formative years: extended families would therefore
discourage incest.)
I also believe that African Americans are smarter generally than Sub-Saharan Africans because African Americans have mixed with a lot of non-African groups, sometimes by force, because slaveowners raping their slaves was not uncommon.
This is also false, Africans are all over the place depending on country and subrace but generally smarter (e.g. Nigerians). One explanation is the Africans who got sold into slavery were dumb and weak compared to the Africans who sold them, and African-Americans are their descendants.
Actually Nigeria is notable for its religious tensions and a high murder rate, equal to that of American blacks (20/100k). In a majority of countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, the mruder rate is lower than America's average (7/100k).
Scrotes, though, believe that elections can't change anything and visible politicians are just a mafia front to the less visible lobbyist mafia and da joos backend, but also think that women voted for every damn political decision that negatively affects them, simultaneously (but somehow did not vote for Trump or Milei?)
Scrotes think women are dumb and easy to manipulate. Which then raises the question: why aren't
they the ones manipulating the dumb women for an easy 50% of the vote?
----
A negroid subhuman attacked and murdered a Ukrainian woman. Cue scrotes: "You fursecuted Daniel Penny, this is why men won't help women!!!"
Daniel Penny was asked whether he'd do what he did, knowing what would follow. He said yes, absolutely, no doubt at all. The scrotes who are
discouraged by his example are by definition not Daniel-Penny-likes (because he isn't discouraged!), they're male-to-male transsexuals who are schlicking their microdicks to the fantasy of denying assistance to a woman that they've always been too cowardly and weak to provide.
(And yes, unfortunately even Daniel Penny couldn't have saved her there.)